Obama’s gun plan

| January 16, 2013

So, his big anticipated speech was pretty much like I said it’d be – his executive orders threat turned out to be a bunch of stuff he should have been doing already, well, except providing incentives for schools to hire cops to patrol schools (I guess that’s only nutty when the NRA says it out loud);

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

But I’m waiting to read the Executive Orders before I have my final say on those things.

So, he wants Congress to recertify the Assault Weapon Ban and get rid of magazines over 10 rounds and I don’t think either will happen, unless those RINOs haven’t got the message yet. If they do pass, we’ll have no one to blame but the Republicans, because we’ve been expecting this from the Democrats for four years now.

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden, Guns

Comments (64)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. RunPatRun says:

    Suspect it’ll be tough to get his restrictions through the House, but we’ll see.

  2. JBS says:

    And it’s supposed to cost us about 1/2 a billion dollars to accomplish this. I guess we know where this fiscal years TriCare surplus is going.

  3. Reaperman says:

    A few of thouse sound a little silly or expensive, but on the surface of it, nothing in there seems too unreasonable. What he wants congress to do comes a bit closer to unreasonable, but he was bound to bring it up, and it’s not like he’s ever going to have another election to worry about.

  4. Hack Stone says:

    4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
    Would this include Mexican drug cartels?

    9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
    See comment regarding point 4.

    10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
    Again, see comment regarding point 4.

    13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
    Yeah, comment for point 4, again.

  5. SGT Kane says:

    I’ll take a paraniod stab at this:

    #1 – Overly vauge and non-specific. What data is being talked about here? Criminal or civil information? Both?

    #2 – You can’t use an EO to alter the clear meaning of a stated law. And Obamacare was pretty specific on this matter.

    #3 – Remember bribery is only illegal when you do it.

    #4 – Again, so vauge I have no idea what this means, and that should scare people. When something is this vauge it can mean anything.

    #5 – Legal justification for keeping property away from a law abiding citizen who may have had his firearms wrongfully seized. “Oh, we are sorry we execuited a no knock warrent on the wrong house, but we can’t give you your firearms back until we’ve completed the background check…which might take years…”

    #6 – Confusing the issue, this isn’t even a legal requirement yet. But it gives law enforcement a right to crack down on dealers…

    #7 – We already have one of these. Its called the NRA. So quit spending my tax dollars on this crap.

    #8 – I don’t think this has ever been a problem. Unless you are getting into biometrics, and I’m willing to bet my hard earned tax dollars that is exactly the case.

    #9 – At first I wasn’t too concerned with this one, but after thinking about it, I fear this will be used to punish the law abiding citizen who had his gun stolen. I’m pretty sure they won’t be using this to return the stolen property.

    #10 – What information? Why? How does this help? It always scares me when I don’t see where they are going with this.

    #11 – Would have been nice had Congress done this under Bush wouldn’t it? I mean if its a good idea now, it was a good idea then. But what this really means is that B. Todd Jones is the new J. Edgar Hoover.

    #12 – I doubt their idea of proper training meshes with mine.

    #13 – Gee, why didn’t someone think of this before? Prosecute crime? The duce you say!

    #14 – Their conclusion is mental illness is a problem, and gun owners are mentally ill.

    #15 – Biometrics.

    #16 – Again, you cannot use EO to change the otherwise clear meaning of a law. I’m sorry you didn’t read your own bill before you signed.

    #17 – Appologies Citizen, but you have no right to medical privacy. Big Govt can see all…

    #18 – Lets pour more money into our school system that doesn’t improve their teaching enviroment. Unless of course you mean armed resource officers. I would be willing to open my wallet for that.

    #19 – Law enforcement already has this. And it has evolved over the years, since Columbine showed that previous models were ineffective. This really should be as simple as “Armed private citizen at the location ends the threat”, but it won’t be.

    #20 through 22 – Not sure what to make of these. They don’t fit with the general theme of “guns r bad m’kay?”

    #23 – If past performance is any indicator, then this will be an echo chamber filled by the liberal good idea fairies…

  6. Claymore says:

    So they’re keeping with the “gun control is a healthcare issue” meme, I see.

  7. NHSparky says:

    Tough? Understatement of the decade. I’m firing off letters to my elected Rep/Senators as fast as I can letting them know any attempt to pass or vote in favor of gun control legislation will be met by an active effort to remove them from office come their next election.

  8. UpNorth says:

    @#7. Same here, Sparky, the e-mails have already gone out, the letters will get mailed tomorrow. Personally, I’d just like to see my sheriff mail a letter off to the VP and POTUS, like Sheriff Tim Mueller of Linn County, Oregon. http://images.bimedia.net/documents/laneco-letter.pdf

  9. Anonymous says:

    This is just the start of the war. It won’t be an easy one. They want their inch so they can keep going for miles, I say nay.

  10. E6 type, 1ea says:

    In addition to being all I can be (the rest are dumb!) one weekend a month, my main job is armed security at a nuclear power plant. We work directly for the plant as a private security, and have no more legal rights than a private citizen defending their home, because legally that’s all we are. Same for all the other nuke security nation-wide. Here’s the conundrum. Our government oversight agency, the NRC, mandates we use “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

    How can the government mandate we use something that the government mandates is illegal to own? So now, when someone asks why you need assault rifles and 30 rd magazines, in addition to the sports car analogy, you can pat them on the head and say to protect nuclear reactors. it doesn’t shut them up (does anything?) but it makes them stammer like a dipshit long enough to laugh at them.

  11. Spade says:

    My M1 carbine turns 69 this year, and all this time with those evil evil over 10 round magazines.

  12. JP says:

    I don’t know, maybe I’m just biased, but was our system of checks and balances, separation of powers set up to give the President the authority to sign 23 EO’s regarding the right to bear arms?

  13. Hondo says:

    Although I believe SGT Kane overstates things a bit (I see the restrictions in the ACHA as being restrictions on setting insurance premiums based on firearm ownership status), I too find items 1, 2, and 16 troubling. We’ve already seen what happens when the VA appoints fiscal guardians, so that makes me quite leery regarding item 1. The combination of 2 and 16 also could be used to allow reporting of anyone who lives in a house where guns are present if in the opinion of the physician that matter should be reported to Federal authorities.

    With the exception of (possibly) mental health treatment, whether or not one exercises their Constitutional right to gun ownership has no relationship whatsoever to one’s medical care. I do not regard it as any of my doctor’s freaking business whether or not I own a firearm. I hope they have a good sense of humor when folks start telling their doctors, point blank, that they have no business asking such questions.

  14. Twist says:

    Just because a doctor can ask me if I have a gun in the house doesn’t mean I have to tell the truth.

  15. USMCE8Ret says:

    My physician: “So, do you have any guns in the house?”

    Me: “Naw, doc. I lost them in the Rappahanock River about a month ago.”

  16. AW1 Tim says:

    I see all of this as troubling.

    There should be NO firearms laws. Period. Full stop. The government has absolutely no business knowing what types or in what quantity of firearms we, the citizens, possess, and no authority to pass such laws.

    The 2nd amendment is quite clear in it’s ending “shall not be infringed”. Every firearms related law that in any way restricts the citizen’s rights to keep and bear arms is an “infringement” and thus patently illegal under the Constitution.

    Not that that has stopped Congress in the past. For example, the “Violence Against Women Act” or VAWA makes it illegal for anyone who has ever been convicted of any sort of “domestic violence” crime (and those guidelines and definitions have been greatly expanded ever since that act’s passage) from ever owning or even possessing under their control a firearm of any type.

    I know this because it affects a friend of mine. He was accused in 1992 of a class D misdemeanor assault of his wife and children. I was there, and a witness for him. It never happened, but a couple of his neighbors said it did so the cops wrote him out a summons. The DA dropped the charges on the wife and one child but kept the one on the youngest child (4 years old). They offered him 1-year probation along with a parenting class if he’d plead guilty. He took the deal to make everything go away. Big mistake.

    A few years later, VAWA gets passed and his simple assault misdemeanor conviction is reclassified as a “domestic violence” crime and he is prohibited from ever owning, even handling, a firearm. Ever. Nada.

    Think about how that retroactive law violates the “Ex Post Facto” prohibition of the Constitution. He was also charged with a new crime, declared guilty and sentenced to a loss of his Constitutionally-protected rights without benefit of counsel, trial, etc. No appeal possible.

    Now look at the way this government seeks to turn the healthcare industry into not only a state-run function under ObamaCare, but to use it as a new secret police to inform on the citizenry. To assemble data and opinions and pass them along to other agencies.

    There are NO ‘reasonable” firearm laws. None at all. Any citizen should be able to purchase and carry any firearm they can afford. Certainly laws should be in place to hold individuals responsible for their actions, but the concept of “prior restraint” should NEVER be a part of our nation’s legal code(s).

    It’s way past time that this nation repealed ALL of our firearm laws and eliminated the ATFE and other agencies and departments.

    Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms belong on store shelves and NOT as a federal agency.

  17. Bam Bam says:

    Agreed about 16 being a bit alarming, it’s the begging of a data base, but also agree with 15… Lost that shit, doc, sorry.

    The rest is mediocre niceties or, frankly, things I somewhat agree with. Somewhat….

  18. Bam Bam says:

    Correction, i agree with poster15, (USMCE8ret), not POTUS 15. Sorry.

  19. valerie says:

    The statistics in this book are from 1998. I wonder if there is an update?


    The thesis is that “shall issue” laws reduce violent crime.

  20. Slause says:

    But if you lie to your doctor twist that can be seen as a habitual mental illness of the pathological liar. While that diagnosis will never be given to a politician, they still believe (as do any quasi-intellectual) that they know what’s best for you.

  21. John says:

    I feel safer already, yeah right.

  22. Dave Thul says:


    if being pregnant can be described by the left as a ‘medical condition’ requiring an ‘operation’ then surely the end result of guns is the impact they have on Obamacare.

    A lot of guys were talking this last weekend at drill, speculating that the 7 30 round mags we all get as basic issue are now worth decent money. I’ll have to look for that duffel bag of them I have laying around somewhere…

  23. SGT Kane says:

    My tongue was mostly in my cheek when I wrote that list, except not really. The more I think about it, the more the paranoia sets in that there is a deeper agenda here masked by the “we have to do something and we have to do it now…and who can disagree with these?”

    A common thread I see is the mental health one, and that concerns me.

    The big one seems to be number 14. Let the CDC determine the cause of gun violence and whatever they come back with is grounds for disarming that citizen. Doctors can report firearm ownership and mental health states (16 and 17), a new class of “dangerous individual” (as per 4) is created, and even if you get better (remember a disease can be treated) the police still don’t have to return your firearms (#5), for a very very long time.

  24. SGT Kane says:

    @22, Cheaper than Dirt is (or was if they still have them in stock) selling 30 rd Colt AR-15 mags for $129. I figure with the gorrila box full I have left over from (redacted), I can now retire.

  25. FatCircles0311 says:

    What the hell does government funded healthcare have to do with firearms?

    Now days you can military desertion, get an honorable discharge, and be eligible for benefits but if you will be questioned for using Constitutional rights…

    *head explodes*

  26. RandomNCO says:

    @22, after 5 years on active duty Infantry, I have about 100 of those things lying around. And SAW nutsacks.

  27. USMCE8Ret says:

    Ditto – my comment in #15 was “tongue in cheek” also. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what spin the whole thing will take for physicians/mental health professionals. I agree that it has far reaching issues, though, and that is discerning.

    To piggy-back on what #16 said, there is also the Lautenberg rule that’s also still in place, and is pervasive in some circles in the military when it comes to making assignments or granting MOS changes. Before I left active duty, there was some discussion about building a database (on the horizon) to track folks with history of certain offenses (but who had been retained or were pending legal action). I can only imagine it would be a tool to assist local law enforcement for mandatory registration cases (i.e. military spouse = registered sex offender), but it sounds like pandora’s box altogether, no matter what agency is tracking.

  28. BK says:

    Maybe it would be worth starting a national registry of privacy-respectin’, gun-friendly physicians and mental health professionals?

  29. David says:

    Is there any other generally owned item of personal property for which you must obtain government permission before you can sell or transfer it? All I can think of is items like machine guns…this sets a very ugly precedent.

  30. USMCE8Ret says:

    @29 – Yeah, Okay. Tell that to my daughter’s school… the one that prohibits her from wearing a Christian cross on her necklace (because it can be construed as “gang related”), the same school that allows Muslim children to wear their head-garb.

  31. Tx gunne says:

    Some one help me get this straight. He won’t or hasn’t used executive order to ban guns and mags? They are going to need congress to do that correct? So what happens when The AWB dies in the house and senate?

  32. Ex-PH2 says:

    Well, before you guys go getting your shorts in a wedgie, the more demanding sort of congress critters don’t seem too very enthused about Obamagun:


    And then there’s this: http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/16/16546968-fact-check-obama-executive-actions-spark-sound-and-fury-but-not-much-to-see-in-them?lite

    I haven’t gone to 1461Days yet to read up those EOs, but I will. Meantime, I reserve my opinion on the whole thing, because this list comes off as the usual slacker, lackadaisical “let’s all get along” kind of thing you have seen from da prez since Day One, and all EOs can be blocked by members of both houses simply by objection to them, so unless someone files an objection, an EO becomes law within 90 days. That gives plenty of time to be active about it.

    And for the record, since I have clearly stated that I have no wish to OWN a gun, it does not mean that I would not get a large, hairy, retired MWD and rename him or her My Gun and take My Gun everywhere I go…as a service dog, of course.


  33. Ex-PH2 says:

    Here is the link to the 1461 Days blogspot:


    Let it load, click on the tab labeled “Executive Orders”, and get something to drink besides whiskey. Might want to order in some wings and pizza, too.

    The new EOs are not posted yet, but will be ASAP.

  34. SGT Kane says:


    He won’t or hasn’t used executive order to ban guns and mags?

    He hasn’t.

    They are going to need congress to do that correct?

    That is their current plan.

    So what happens when The AWB dies in the house and senate?

    Prices get back to normal. I can find ammo at Walmart. There’s another shooting and another round of “we must do something!”

  35. Common Sense says:

    #18 – Most suburban high schools take 15-20 minutes to get from one end to the other. Said school resource officers (schools in our area only have one) are most likely at the other end of the school when a shooter shows up.

    It would make more sense to train teachers to carry, then put a big sign on the school that there is an armed presence.

  36. Hondo says:

    Folks: if you haven’t read Ex-PH2’s link – do so. And make damn sure you read the comments also – they’re even better than the article!

    Bravo, lass – haven’t laughed that hard in a looooong time. And I’m not even 1/2 way through the comments.

  37. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hondo, I had to give up reading after a while. I ran out of oxygen.

  38. Bill R. says:

    I won’t be lying to my doctor. I will tell him the honest truth. Whether I have guns in my home or not, it is not a medical issue and therefore, none of your business.

  39. ron says:

    remember—obamacare+++cdc+++medical diagnoses+++PTSD+++veteran status+++the chain leads from doc asking about guns, cdc declaring ptsd to be mental illness, all agencies WILL now cooperate and share info, so all feds learn which vet has PTSD, cause they’re getting a VA pension, and since feds know who has firearms, because of registration for gun purchase AND ammo purchase, pretty soon it becomes very easy to locate and remove firearms from the mentally ill, which will include every vet who ever claimed ptsd, or maybe every vet period.

  40. TacticalTrunkMonkey says:

    Had to stop at #4 for a bit…the Attorney General IS the reason that a lot of dangerous people have fully automatic guns…

  41. PALADIN says:

    Rand Paul just said tonight on Hannity that he and a bunch of other Republicans will work to recind Obamugabes exec orders as Unconstitutional.
    Hopefullly they can.

    Now all the Turds of the Race Bait Club , i.e. the head turd , Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackassson are all over the airwaves today claiming it’s southerners fault that guns are such a problem.
    Lol ! I have the suspicion that they did’nt get ALL they wanted from Obamugabe and they all are’nt too happy about it.

    Too f’ ing bad !
    The fight is only beginning.

  42. UpNorth says:

    Apparently, Jesse Jacks-hmm and Al Tawana Brawley Sharpton don’t pay any attention to what goes on in Chicago or D.C. Or Detroit, St Louis, Kansas City, and on and on.

  43. Roger in Republic says:

    My physician: “So, do you have any guns in the house?”

    Me: House, sure? And barn, and car, and the three I’m carrying on me right now. So what? Your point being?

  44. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    I was daydreaming about the spoeech I would have liked obamaman to give…

    In a very real way, I share responsibility for the deaths of a number of people. The fact is that I have failed to ensure that existing laws are fully enforced. Worse, on my watch, the DOJ engaged in illegal gun trafficking which led to the death of a Border Patrol agent and others. And many of the those weapons remain unaccounted for to this day. I shudder to think what further harm those who have those weapons will do with them.

    And then, of course, there is Newtown’s horror. Sandy Hook, like most schools, was a ready and easy targets for an evildoer. So, why didn’t I or the state of Connecticut ensure the safety of those students and teachers? Part of the answer is that we progressives cannot endorse the fighting-fire-with-fire approach. One or two armed teachers at Sandy Hook might have made all the difference. But we are loathe to concede this point, just as we are loathe to admit that what we truly want is all guns out of private hands. So we propose new laws to add to the existing ones and pretend we are doing something meaningful. But the truth is that a person intent on mass murder will find a way to work his evil.

    At Sandy Hook, we focused on the AR-15, but the murderer had a number of weapons. If that one had been unavailable to him, he would have used the others. He was deadly successful because there was no one but him armed and no one there who was able to protect those kids and their teachers.

    I failed those kids. Connecticut failed those kids. And nothing I do and nothing Congress does in addressing my plan will prevent the next tragedy from occurring. What is needed we won’t do—-protect the children in a fashion in which I, my family, many members of Congress, and others in government are protected: by carrying a gun or by being safeguarded by people who do.

  45. DLM says:

    @16 same happened to a college buddy of mine. Had an argument late one night with his wife, woke the neighbors who called the police. Same deal offered to him as your friend. Plead guilty 2 years before that Lautenberg amendment was snaked into the law. He told me that if he had known then what he knows now, he never would have done that.

  46. Veritas Omnia Vincit says:

    @47 Agreed…never trust the cops when this type of thing happens, never…they are not your friends, they are trying to close cases, period. Never cooperate with them without your attorney present and never go downtown to “answer” questions. If you are not charged tell them you have no intention of cooperating and ask them to leave, and contact your attorney right away.

    Justice in America is an industry like steel production. The end product is criminals in jails. Just as you would not attempt to forge steel without a good steel worker, don’t attempt to forge justice without a good attorney.

  47. JBS says:

    #37 Ex-PH2


    “You can take away my farts only after you pry the last one from my cold, dead cheeks!”

  48. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    1) Doctor: “Do have any guns in your home?”

    Patient: “No, I only own one and it’s on my hip.”

    2) Doctor: “Do have any guns in your home?”

    Patient: “Yes, I have a caulk gun and a nail gun.”

    3) Doctor: “Do have any guns in your home?”

    Patient: “Before I answer that, may I see your medical school transcripts and your current license and certification to practice medicine in this state, please?”